Quotes of the day

posted at 8:15 pm on February 5, 2012 by Allahpundit

“The decision to require Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives and abortifacients they deem immoral in their insurance plans, demonstrates either President Obama’s personal antagonism to religious liberty — or the degree to which he is beholden to the secular left.

“Obama is too politically savvy to have been caught by surprise by the backlash over this decision, so I suppose we must assume this is his worldview: That government can and must use its coercive power to force everyone — regardless of their personal or religious beliefs — to do what they know is best. Period.”

***

“Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Muñoz pushed back against the church’s letter, saying the policy does not force anyone to buy our use contraception.

“‘This new law will save money for millions of Americans,’ Muñoz wrote Wednesday in a White House blog post. ‘But more importantly, it will ensure Americans nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy. The Obama Administration is committed to both respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services.'”

***

“The handling of the issue offers a hint of Obama’s approach to governing and campaigning in 2012: When confronted with a position close to his heart — and dear to the base — Obama is increasingly inclined to side with people who will vote for him even if it means enraging those who might, but probably won’t, vote for him.

“As a general matter, it made perfect sense to cover contraception. Many see doing so as protecting women’s rights, and expanded contraception coverage will likely reduce the number of abortions. While the Catholic Church formally opposes contraception, this teaching is widely ignored by the faithful. One does not see many Catholic families of six or 10 or twelve that were quite common in the 1950s. Contraception might have something to do with this.

“Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here…

“‘The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed,’ Obama said back in 2006. ‘And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.’ I wish the president had tried harder to find such rules here.”

***

“[T]he issue of the government’s effort to curtail the freedom of religious institutions to conduct operations according to their moral principles seems to have galvanized a tenuous alliance between the Catholic left and the Catholic right. Michael Sean Winters, a columnist for the ultra-progressive newspaper the National Catholic Reporter, declared that Obama had “lost my vote” after the rule was issued. He wrote: ‘[T]he president’s decision … essentially told us, as Catholics, that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our church has built over the years.’

“Cardinal Roger Mahony, the former archbishop of Los Angeles, used to be derided by Catholic conservatives for his hobnobbing with pro-abortion-rights Democratic politicians and for his expensive and avant-garde Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. Yet Mahony has turned out to be one of the most vehement opponents of the new rule. ‘I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today,’ he wrote on his blog…

“[I]t is refreshing to see that no matter how disaffected from their church’s teachings some Catholics might feel, they believe that its organizations have a right to act in accordance with its principles.”

***

“Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists…

“Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-­clericalism.

“The administration’s ultimate motivation is uncertain. Has it adopted a radical secularism out of conviction, or is it cynically appealing to radical secularists? In either case, the war on religion is now formally declared.”

Chastity, restraint both are two parts of the RC community that allowed it to survive the falling Roman Empire. In fact by having a chaste life they were seen as having a lifestyle that was appealing since it got away from the decadent and debauched lives led by Roman citizens. These are deeply held moral beliefs.

They are also survival traits for when a society goes on the decline and virtue suddenly seems much better than hedonism and self-pleasure and self-centeredness.

These are mortal enemies of the modern political Left.

If you can’t spring for contraception on your own dime, then why should others pay to help your hedonism out? And if it is so you can afford a couple of bottles of wine or a six-pack to go with them, you don’t have your priorities straight to begin with.

It always amazes me how the same people who b*tch about “privacy in the bedroom” are the first ones to demand people — especially and specifically people whose religious/political ideologies they don’t like — foot the bill for their…ahem…activities behind that bedroom door.

Either you have your privacy or you have Catholics (forcibly) footing the bill for your birth control (which is un-Constitutional). You can’t have it both ways.

If you can’t spring for contraception on your own dime, then why should others pay to help your hedonism out? And if it is so you can afford a couple of bottles of wine or a six-pack to go with them, you don’t have your priorities straight to begin with.

ajacksonian on February 6, 2012 at 7:01 AM

If sales of alcohol came with the option of receiving a complimentary condom, I dare say there might be a lot less abortions and babies born out of wedlock.

If sales of alcohol came with the option of receiving a complimentary condom, I dare say there might be a lot less abortions and babies born out of wedlock.

Flora Duh on February 6, 2012 at 7:17 AM

Yup! I’d make it so you had to get a bottle of Thunderbird or Everclear for that and not the dinky bottles, neither… or a full case of beer and none of that ‘Lite’ junk, but real beer with a real alcohol content to it.

Birth control is an exercise of liberty, not a ‘right’.

You do not have a ‘right’ to products, but you do have the liberty to buy them. And twofers are the best sort of deals around.

If you can’t spring for contraception on your own dime, then why should others pay to help your hedonism out? And if it is so you can afford a couple of bottles of wine or a six-pack to go with them, you don’t have your priorities straight to begin with.

PBOH’s policy on the contraception is a massive over reach in to the freedom of churches to practice their religions. It would be as bad as if he demanded that they be required to conduct gay wedding if they are to conduct any. It’s a plain and simple infringement on their 1st Amendment rights.

“Gov. Mitt Romney abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course yesterday and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims. In a turnaround that foes derided as politically motivated, Romney directed his Department of Public Health to scrap rules that exempted the Catholic institutions from a new law governing the medicine.”
(Kimberly Atkins, “Romney Flip Nixes Hospital Exception On Post-Rape Drug,” Boston Herald, 12/9/05)

INC on February 5, 2012 at 9:36 PM

When Republican presidential candidates were asked recently to cite their biggest mistake, Romney replied: “Probably from a political standpoint and a personal standpoint, the greatest mistake was when I first ran for office, being deeply opposed to abortion but saying, ‘I support the current law,’ which was pro-choice and effectively a pro-choice position. That was just wrong.” (“Romney’s honesty problem”, Boston Globe August 9, 2007)

Now what was it bluegill said the other day about any man who panders to the “pro-choice” crowd?

Oh yeah.

Oh, and any man who brags about his “pro-choice” stance in order to kiss up to these witches is a wuss and a not a real man.

“Not surprisingly, the American Catholic bishops have presented a nearly united front in opposition to the rule, scheduled to go into effect in 2013. The website CatholicVote.org lists 140 bishops, more than 70% of the 198 heads of U.S. Catholic dioceses, who have either issued or intend to issue statements opposing the mandate.” – L.A. Times

A mere 70% does not a “unified front” represent.

The ONLY way to reverse this anti-Catholic trend is for those same [allegedly] outraged Bishops to deny the Sacrament of Communion from “Catholic” pols who are proponents of the very policies that the Church vehemently opposes. Problem Solved. The Episcopal Church will absorb the “Catholic-Lite”. They can have ’em.

Meanwhile, our virulently anti-Christian POTUS sucks up to his Muslim pals.(gee, maybe we 48% who didn’t vote for the bastid will roll over)
A vote for Santorum or Mittens simply guarantees the SOS.
We’re screwed, ummmm … as it were.

I wasn’t implying the government should pay for them. Many companies use complimentary giveaways of their products as a way to hook potential customers.

Flora Duh on February 6, 2012 at 8:04 AM

So you’re saying the beer companies should buy into accepting partial liability for what one does with their legal product? Next it will be automakers to blame for poor drivers. And of course gun manufacturers bear some responsibility for all gun deaths.

So you’re saying the beer companies should buy into accepting partial liability for what one does with their legal product? Next it will be automakers to blame for poor drivers. And of course gun manufacturers bear some responsibility for all gun deaths.

Mitoch55 on February 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Quit trying to put words into my mouth and start a conflict where there isn’t one.

It was merely an observation that condom manufacturers may want to hook up with liqour stores to offer their product complimentary to attract future customers. Helps the condom manufacturers and also might cut down on the number of abortions and children born out of wedlock.

I wasn’t advocating that ANY industry be required to accept partial liability for anyone’s behavior.

I recall a bunch of Catholics were A-OK when Obama received in honorary degree from Notre Dame. I guess they were comfortable with Obama’s history of throwing everyone else and everything else under the bus when convenient to the man-child.

So, now we have to add contraception to the long list of things that we have to pay so that others can live a fair life. Seems equal but let me know when you have to pay for my boy toy, ok. Hurry up and get to that part, I’m not getting any younger. Hate to make so light of such a serious situation but we’ve had so many serious situations in the last 3 years that I’m getting immune to them. Strange they would pick a fight with the religious and kick F&F down the road til after Nov.

Points out a question I have had for years. If Catholics don’t wish to subscribe to the rules of the faith administered by its hierarchy, then why do they remain Catholic? I guess 0 and liberals fancy themselves capable of taking down the Vatican. Yeah, Good luck./

Bmore on February 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Agreed. As a Catholic, I have never understood this either. I have a book called “Ungodly Rage” by Donna Steichen, which documents how feminists, including many women religious, have tried to subvert the teachings of the Church by insinuating their own radical anti-Catholic ideology into it. Steichen asks why these women remain in the church when their behavior and attitudes suggest that they hate everything about it; one nun confided in Steichen that she figured she could better spread her destruction if she remained within it.

But as you said, good luck with that — Obama and the liberals thinking they are capable of taking down the Vatican.

The problem isn’t just forcing Catholic hospitals and doctors to give birth control. The real problem is the fact that Medicaid, paid for by our taxes, pays for birth control. That has been an infringement on religious beliefs for a long time.

I recall a bunch of Catholics were A-OK when Obama received in honorary degree from Notre Dame. I guess they were comfortable with Obama’s history of throwing everyone else and everything else under the bus when convenient to the man-child.

Mutnodjmet on February 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM

As Karl Magnus said above, “The ONLY way to reverse this anti-Catholic trend is for those same [allegedly] outraged Bishops to deny the Sacrament of Communion from “Catholic” pols who are proponents of the very policies that the Church vehemently opposes.”

Kind of gives mixed signals for American Catholic bishops to oppose this mandate, when you have politicians like Nancy Pelosi loudly and proudly voicing her support for gay marriage and federal funding of Planned Parenthood, while also smugly stating that she still partakes of the Sacrament of Communion.

Now they are streaming back to the institution they as catholic liberals derided and mocked.

Thicklugdonkey on February 5, 2012 at 11:35 PM

It’s been my experience, especially with a few people I’ve worked with over the years, that the most virulent anti-Catholics are ex-Catholics. With these few people, scratch the surface and it’s almost always a minor misunderstanding which gets blown far out of proportion and they somehow then make the leap that as a result, the Catholic Church is the embodiment of evil.

It’s been my experience, especially with a few people I’ve worked with over the years, that the most virulent anti-Catholics are ex-Catholics. With these few people, scratch the surface and it’s almost always a minor misunderstanding which gets blown far out of proportion and they somehow then make the leap that as a result, the Catholic Church is the embodiment of evil.

PatriotGal2257 on February 6, 2012 at 10:04 AM

True of most churches, especially the ones whose dogma makes existential claims about good and evil.
If the church really is “right”, then the ex-ers have jeopardized their own salvation; they are safe only if the church is “wrong”.

I wasn’t advocating that ANY industry be required to accept partial liability for anyone’s behavior.

But I think you knew that.

Patriots Fan?

Flora Duh on February 6, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Try again. By having the beer companies partner with condom companies you want them to say, “Yes, because of our product you will probably engage in some risky behaviour. So to protect you from your own irresponsibility, here is a little something so you can continue to get your freak on.” Nanny mentality at its finest.

Don’t quite understand the non sequitur, but I’ve been a Giants fan since the early 70s (when I first became aware of football). Even through 6-10 and 4-12 years. Deflection much?

I recall a bunch of Catholics were A-OK when Obama received in honorary degree from Notre Dame. I guess they were comfortable with Obama’s history of throwing everyone else and everything else under the bus when convenient to the man-child.

Mutnodjmet on February 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I was incensed. Of course I also know that Notre Dame stopped being a Catholic institution in all but name many years ago. They are a secular humanist progressive institution that supports gay marriage and abortion…just like Obama. Of course they would honor that stinking turd.

A mere 70% does not a “unified front” represent.Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 8:42 AM

My diocese does not currently have a bishop, as the previous one was promoted to archbishop and we don’t have a replacement yet. However, our diocese has come out against this ruling. So, please add one more to the list.

The problem isn’t just forcing Catholic hospitals and doctors to give birth control. The real problem is the fact that Medicaid, paid for by our taxes, pays for birth control. That has been an infringement on religious beliefs for a long time.

Deanna on February 6, 2012 at 9:31 AM

And abortion. People who think the Hyde Amendment stopped federal money going to abortion are wrong.